Obamacare

[Jes]

... how about you offer some legitimate alternatives.

That might be the most immature thing I've read on here. :laugh2:


Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the dyke triplets don't like me.
What makes you think they'd take any word of direction from me on this subject?!?

 

[XJEEPER]

I thought this quote was interesting
"Article I, Section 8, however, gives Congress the power to provide for the “general welfare,” repeating part of the well-known preamble (“We the People … “). Congress also has the power “to regulate Commerce” and health care and the insurance of health care are commercial activities. So health care might not be a right, but it is a benefit Congress can bestow upon the people as a part of its constitutional powers."

Welfare
welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [<ME wel faren, to fare well] Source: AHD
Welfare in today's context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution.


Regulating Commerce, as described, would apply to anti-trust situations, where there is a monopoly created to take advantage of the consumer. Article 1, Section 8 gives the US government the right (and responsibility) to prevent the US Citizens from such a tyranical imposition.

Using your reference, Obama is proposing the creation of a healthcare program that, by design, will eventually lead to a government controlled monopoly of our healtcare system. He knows exactly what he is doing, and so do I.

Sen Wilson was accurate.


Taxation Without Representation

A situation in which a government imposes taxes on a particular group of its citizens, despite the citizens not consenting or having an actual representative deliver their views when the taxation decision was made. This situation was one of the triggering events that triggered the original thirteen American colonies to revolt against the British Empire.

 

[XJEEPER]

It's very clear healthcare needs not much really. What needs to happen is the government needs to stop taxing the hell out of the working people to buy votes from those that do not work. I've got a "reform" fo ya. the government cuts taxes by ten percent, then those that work and cannot afford insurance could afford insurance. The main problem the united states has right now is the government is in my back pocket so far every time I open my wallet I get pissed. Tort reform hell yes, but wait, what political hack isn't in the line for trial lawyer money? The problem is. The government is making it easier to not work, take the "welfare" and vote to keep your nipple open. His speach sounded genuine, so does every other actor's speach, hell Forrest Gump made me sad, he as all other high ranking American political schlub are nothing more than a soundbite wrapped in a nice suit. Until the American people stand up and tell the elected elite to stop the cash cow bit, we're screwed. Chet Edwards hates being in parades in my home town because we boo his sorry ass. If you want the goverenment to control every step of your life it's all good. If not, ya better balk now. My spell check is broke, sorry. Hi Urban! It's all about rights and responsibilities. If you have the right to healthcare, who the hell has the responsibilty to pay for it? You do.

Knock it off with the logic and reason, already.......... :nono:

 

[chpmnsws6]

What is the difference between current public aid and the new proposed plan? If you are without insurance and get injured, you still go to the ER.... Correct? Who foots that bill? Medicaid?

I was speaking to my father about this subject, as I'm writing a 10 page biased paper on the subject, and he brought that question to the table. Have it it guys!

 

[Boatwrench]

From his own speech:
"When health care costs grow at the rate they have, it puts greater pressure on programs like Medicare and Medicaid. If we do nothing to slow these skyrocketing costs, we will eventually be spending more on Medicare and Medicaid than every other government program combined"

So the government healthcare system that isn't working needs to be increased to a bigger system. That makes about as much sense as 'loaning' money to auto companies that are going bankrupt.

I am trying to understand how from that quoted sentence you came to the conclusion that Medicaid & Medicare are not working?

 

[RichP]

What is the difference between current public aid and the new proposed plan? If you are without insurance and get injured, you still go to the ER.... Correct? Who foots that bill? Medicaid?

I was speaking to my father about this subject, as I'm writing a 10 page biased paper on the subject, and he brought that question to the table. Have it it guys!

I think there area two issues here, first if you have assets, say a house and no medical coverage and are just keeping your nose above water. In the second case if you are say an illegal or one with no assets and no medical coverage.
You go to the ER for a problem, In the first case you get billed at a much higher rate than one with coverage, with no coverage and no 'cash' to pay for it they come after your assets. In the second case with no assets, no cash, they write it off and add it to the rate they charge all the first cases.
I think the trick here is to turn the medical insurance into less profit centers than they are now. I read that the three best things to invest in right now are energy, health insurance and funeral homes, funeral homes short term till we see how bad the H1N1 is going to be, if it's as bad as some think the funeral business could be in for a boom time this winter.

 

[AL BUNDY]

"I am trying to understand how from that quoted sentence you came to the conclusion that Medicaid & Medicare are not working? "

I think Medicare is not working because it will go broke by 2019.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/01/AR2006050101448.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114970,00.html
http://www.seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Medicare/4-03-23Broke.htm
http://bulletin.aarp.org/states/ar/2009/19/articles/medicare_broke_8_years.html

 

[Boatwrench]

I think Medicare is not working because it will go broke by 2019.

Well then you are agreeing with the President.

From your post..."When health care costs grow at the rate they have, it puts greater pressure on programs like Medicare and Medicaid" - President Obama

The President is saying that because of the out of control health care costs (<- growth rate) greater pressure ( <- it is harder to fund) is on medicaid (<- making it go broke by 2019).

I'll make a simple comparison. Your monthly gasoline expenditure to commute to work and back is $100 when gas is $2.50 a gallon. If the price of gasoline goes outta control again, you'll go broke trying to get to work.

 

[AL BUNDY]

Thank you for saying what I already said again. We know Medicare is going broke and we know why. That's why Medicare is an example that government run healthcare is a bad idea. We need healthcare reform, not government run healthcare.

On a much better note:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32811199/ns/politics-more_politics?GT1=43001

 

[94xjstud]

I agree with most of you guys, but I would also like to see a plan where children (under 18) would have access to free healthcare.

Personally I had Leukemia as an infant and it took alot of loans/fundraising and more so that my parents could provide me with the proper care that I needed.

 

[Ecomike]

The latest cry for help comes from Nevada’s University Medical Center, via the Las Vegas Review Journal:

Since April, UMC has been spending about $2 million per month providing emergency dialysis services to 80 illegal immigrants, Brannman said.
​

What I would like to know is why it costs $2,000,000 for dialysis treatment per month for 80 warm bodies. That is $25,000 per person, per month. I am guessing that is not done daily, but maybe every 2-3 days at most? So that works out to about $2,500 per day per patient for a few hours of use of a 30 year old technology, or even higher (Like $5,000 or $10,000 per day?) if my frequency guess was off. That is one of the real problems.

I would be willing to bet if we outlawed the health insurance industry, and outlawed medical malpractice lawsuits, and people shopped for doctor care the way we do for shampoo at WalMart, those costs would be a fraction of what they are today. Only problem is it would kill one of the few parts of the economy that is growing putting too many of us out of work.

 

[urban yan]

That might be the most immature thing I've read on here. :laugh2:

Immature? meh. I think my comment was a poor runner-up to yours.

Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the dyke triplets don't like me.
What makes you think they'd take any word of direction from me on this subject?!?

...but you speak so eloquently. Surely they'll listen to you.

I agree with most of you guys, but I would also like to see a plan where children (under 18) would have access to free healthcare.
Personally I had Leukemia as an infant and it took alot of loans/fundraising and more so that my parents could provide me with the proper care that I needed.

But that's socialism lol
Anyways, I'm glad you're ok now man. I lost a close family member to Leukemia when I was young. Nobody, living in an industrialized nation, should be forced to face your folks hardship.

On a much better note:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32811199/ns/politics-more_politics?GT1=43001

Nazis? Really? I think people need some perspective.
Maybe they should google auschwitz before they hit the printshop.

 

[RichP]

Thank you for saying what I already said again. We know Medicare is going broke and we know why. That's why Medicare is an example that government run healthcare is a bad idea. We need healthcare reform, not government run healthcare.

On a much better note:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32811199/ns/politics-more_politics?GT1=43001

Do you really know why ? Take Social Security, the government really needed money and a new open tax was not an option, result was Social Security. It was designed as a money machine, hows that you ask, simple, when it was started the retirement age was 65, the main difference was the actuarial tables listed the high average age as 55 for surviving, most who paid in to it never survived to collect a dime, that proved true in the case of my great grandfather, grandfather and father, none ever collected a dime. The money was also put in to the general fund, with congress 'funding' any outgoing payments with every budget, they got to play pig farmers with the rest for whatever pork projects they wanted.
Same with the medicare programs, it's funded and paid for with MY tax dollars, only problem is CONGRESS gets to do the funding every year and gets to play pig farmer with the rest. If every dime social security paid in every year was put in an untouchable fund drawing 4% interest it would be self sustaining now, actually about 20 years ago.
Our elected officials have been screwing this country since Kennedy was president, every single administration has screwed it more every time. None of these clowns has the basic understanding that when you are digging yourself in to a hole the first thing you need to do STOP DIGGING, buying more shovels is not the answer.

 

[AL BUNDY]

I completely agree.

 

[Ecomike]

Do you really know why ? Take Social Security, the government really needed money and a new open tax was not an option, result was Social Security. It was designed as a money machine, hows that you ask, simple, when it was started the retirement age was 65, the main difference was the actuarial tables listed the high average age as 55 for surviving, most who paid in to it never survived to collect a dime, that proved true in the case of my great grandfather, grandfather and father, none ever collected a dime. The money was also put in to the general fund, with congress 'funding' any outgoing payments with every budget, they got to play pig farmers with the rest for whatever pork projects they wanted.
Same with the medicare programs, it's funded and paid for with MY tax dollars, only problem is CONGRESS gets to do the funding every year and gets to play pig farmer with the rest. If every dime social security paid in every year was put in an untouchable fund drawing 4% interest it would be self sustaining now, actually about 20 years ago.
Our elected officials have been screwing this country since Kennedy was president, every single administration has screwed it more every time. None of these clowns has the basic understanding that when you are digging yourself in to a hole the first thing you need to do STOP DIGGING, buying more shovels is not the answer.

I think you need to recheck some of your facts? IIRC retirement age was not 65 originally. The original tax rates for SS were just high enough to pay for those who were immediately put on the plan during the Great Depression. It was originally a tax and pay as you go plan. SS has gone broke (or nearly) before, and rates have been increased before to make up for increasing numbers of retirees. The last major rate increases for SS were put in place by a bi-partisan team under Reagan, that made it a cash cow, with a surplus for about 30 years.

Both of my parents, born in 1922 and 1921 lived long enough to collect it. My mother collected it for 20 years. My brother has been collecting it for 3 years now.
SS money is not put in the general fund and spent. Yes the government may borrow from it, but it pays it back with interest, just like any other borrow.

 

[Ecomike]

Q24: How much has Social Security paid out since it started?A: From 1937 (when the first payments were made) through 2005 the Social Security program has expended more than $8.9 trillion.
(See detailed tables of annual Social Security payments 1937-2004.)
Q25: How much has Social Security taken in taxes and other income since it started?A: From 1937 (when taxes were first collected) through 2005 the Social Security program has received more than $10.7 trillion in income.
(See detailed tables of annual Social Security revenues 1937-2004.)
Q26: Has Social Security always taken in more money each year than it needed to pay benefits?

A: No. So far there have been 11 years in which the Social Security program did not take enough in FICA taxes to pay the current year's benefits. During these years, Trust Fund bonds in the amount of about $24 billion made up the difference. (See detailed Table.)
Q27: Do the Social Security Trust Funds earn interest?

A: Yes they do. By law, the assets of the Social Security program must be invested in securities guaranteed as to both principal and interest. The Trust Funds hold a mix of short-term and long-term government bonds. The Trust Funds can hold both regular Treasury securities and "special obligation" securities issued only to federal trust funds. In practice, most of the securities in the Social Security Trust Funds are of the "special obligation" type. (See additional explanation from SSA's Office of the Actuary.)

The Trust Funds earn interest which is set at the average market yield on long-term Treasury securities. Interest earnings on the invested assets of the combined OASI and DI Trust Funds were $55.5 billion in calendar year 1999. This represented an effective annual interest rate of 6.9 percent.

The Trust Funds have earned interest in every year since the program began. More detailed information on the Trust Fund investments can be found in the Annual Report of the Social Security Trustees and on the Actuary's webpages concerning the Investment Transactions and Investment Holdings of the Trust Funds.




Found at:
http://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html

I could swear that SS retirement age was raised to 65/63 under the Reagan administration, but I am not finding any proof of it. Still looking.

 

[Ecomike]

OK, RichP was right about age 65 retirement age in the early days of US SS. Here is what I was thinking about, it just has not happened as fast as I thought. Retirement age is rising based on when you were born. I think this what was passed under Reagan that I was recalling, it is just taking decades to slowly sneek into effect so no one really notices. How Typical.

http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/agereduction.htm

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/pubs/ageincrease.htm

 

[RichP]

I think you need to recheck some of your facts? IIRC retirement age was not 65 originally. The original tax rates for SS were just high enough to pay for those who were immediately put on the plan during the Great Depression. It was originally a tax and pay as you go plan. SS has gone broke (or nearly) before, and rates have been increased before to make up for increasing numbers of retirees. The last major rate increases for SS were put in place by a bi-partisan team under Reagan, that made it a cash cow, with a surplus for about 30 years.

Both of my parents, born in 1922 and 1921 lived long enough to collect it. My mother collected it for 20 years. My brother has been collecting it for 3 years now.
SS money is not put in the general fund and spent. Yes the government may borrow from it, but it pays it back with interest, just like any other borrow.

Whats on paper and what is reality are two different and distinct things. I go more by results than what was planned. In the first 30 years it paid out only 10% of what it collected. If your mother collected it for 20 years based on her lifetime income it was probably pretty small just based on the earnings of most females of that time. After certain advances in medicine the age started climbing pretty quick.
As for borrowing and paying back with interest, where do you think the interest comes from, in effect everyone is paying twice. Maybe I'm just naive but then I've never made a career out of robbing peter to pay paul like DC does.

 

[Ecomike]

As for borrowing and paying back with interest, where do you think the interest comes from, in effect everyone is paying twice. Maybe I'm just naive but then I've never made a career out of robbing peter to pay paul like DC does.

It is not really appropriate to tie the two together like that. The general fund deficit is going to be funded with borrowed money from some where, and that interest expense comes out of general taxes. Social security is going to invest its surplus somewhere. The two are not really linked the way you imply. If SS invested somewhere else, it might get a higher return, but would also take higher risks with the principle. It simply chooses to invest it in the lowest risk borrower there is. If they invested it in a risky way, and lost, then we would be on the hook for the principle and interest. Bail out #3!.

 

[Ecomike]

In the first 30 years it paid out only 10% of what it collected.

We need to trim back your 30 year claim, way back. Here is the data table.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/tftable.html

The first few years were a huge cash cow, as you pointed out, but not 30 years. The 1950's were when it took a rapid slide, where payments grew much faster than receipts.

What is interesting, is that it has never run completely out of money. It has had years where it paid out more than it took in on a year to year basis, but has always had a positive beginning and ending balance value year to year, which I was not aware of.